7
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ELCO, INC., DANIEL A. GUERETTE, ) and JOEL E. GUERETTE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) RICHARD E. WENGREN, JR. and ) FIN TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ) ) Defendants, ) NOW COME Plaintiffs Elco, Inc., Daniel A. Guerette, and Joel E. Guerette, by and through undersigned counsel and hereby Complains against Defendants Richard E. Wengren, Jr. and Fin Technology, LLC as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Elco, Inc. is a Maine corporation with a principal place of business in Lewiston, County of Androscoggin, and State of Maine. 2. Plaintiff Daniel A. Guerette is an individual and resident of the County of Androscoggin and State of Maine. Plaintiff Daniel E. Guerette is the President of Elco, I nc. 3. Plaintiff Joel E. Guerette is an individual and resident of the County of Androscoggin and State of Maine. Plaintiff Joel E. Guerette is the Vice President of Elco, Inc. 4. Defendant Richard E. Wengren, Jr. (hereinafter “Wengren”) is an individual and resident of the County of Cumberland, and State of Maine. Defendant Richard E. Wengren, Jr. is the managing member of Fin Technology, LLC. 5. Defendant Fin Technology, LLC is a Maine limited liability company with a place of business in Freeport, County of Cumberland, and State of Maine. JURISDICTION Case 2:12-cv-001 80-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 1/7

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

ELCO, INC., DANIEL A. GUERETTE, )

and JOEL E. GUERETTE, )

)Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) COMPLAINT )

RICHARD E. WENGREN, JR. and )

FIN TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ))

Defendants, )

NOW COME Plaintiffs Elco, Inc., Daniel A. Guerette, and Joel E. Guerette, by and

through undersigned counsel and hereby Complains against Defendants Richard E. Wengren, Jr.

and Fin Technology, LLC as follows:

PARTIES

1.  Plaintiff Elco, Inc. is a Maine corporation with a principal place of business in

Lewiston, County of Androscoggin, and State of Maine.

2.  Plaintiff Daniel A. Guerette is an individual and resident of the County of 

Androscoggin and State of Maine. Plaintiff Daniel E. Guerette is the President of Elco, Inc.

3.  Plaintiff Joel E. Guerette is an individual and resident of the County of 

Androscoggin and State of Maine. Plaintiff Joel E. Guerette is the Vice President of Elco, Inc.

4.  Defendant Richard E. Wengren, Jr. (hereinafter “Wengren”) is an individual and

resident of the County of Cumberland, and State of Maine. Defendant Richard E. Wengren, Jr.

is the managing member of Fin Technology, LLC.

5.  Defendant Fin Technology, LLC is a Maine limited liability company with a

place of business in Freeport, County of Cumberland, and State of Maine.

JURISDICTION

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 2/7

6.  This Court has jurisdiction over Counts I and II pursuant to 28 USC § 1338

because they involve the application of 35 U.S.C. § 256.

7.  This Court has jurisdiction over Counts III and IV pursuant to 28 USC § 1338(b).

FACTS

8.  In or around December of 2006, Wengren submitted a provisional patent

application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a fouling removal system for

 jet drive water intake (the “provisional patent”).

9.  The provisional patent contained thirty-two claims.

10. 

The prototype of the fouling removal system did not operate as intended and

Wengren lacked the engineering knowledge, resources, and skills to make it operational.

11.  In or around late 2006, Wengren contacted the Plaintiffs to form a partnership for

the redesign and reinvention of fouling removal system that would operate as intended.

12.  A partnership was formed whereby the Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette agreed

to utilize their individual knowledge, skills, and the resources as well as the resources of their

corporation, Plaintiff Elco, Inc. to invent and engineer certain modifications which would enable

the fouling removal system to function.

13.  Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette, individually and utilizing the resources of 

Elco, Inc., invented and engineered modifications which made the original fouling removal

system operational.

14.  In or around June of 2007, Wengren submitted a utility patent application to the

United States Patent and Trademark Office which incorporated Plaintiffs’ unique inventions

(Patent #1).

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 3/7

15.  Patent #1 is identified by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Patent

Number US7377826B1.

16.  Patent #1 specifically incorporated Plaintiffs Joel and Daniel Guerette’s 

inventions including, but not limited to, certain inventions set forth in Claims 10, 27, 30, 31, and

32.

17.  Despite incorporating Joel and Daniel Guerette’s inventions in Patent #1,

Wengren failed to name them as co-inventors in his utility patent application.

18.  Although functional, the fouling removal system design under Patent #1 was

flawed.

19.  When confronted with his failure to include Daniel and Joel Guerette as co-

inventors, Wengren admitted the error but the parties agreed that the fouling removal system

needed an entirely new designed which would required a second patent.

20.  Rather than incur the expense of modifying the inventorship on Patent #1, the

parties agreed that the redesign would be patented; both patents would be transferred to a new

limited liability company to be known as Fin Technology, LLC; and that Wengren, Daniel

Guerette, and Joel Guerette would all be equal shareholders in Fin Technology, LLC.

21.  In the following years, Joel Guerette and Daniel Guerette, utilizing the resources

of Elco, Inc, invented and engineered a new prototype of the fouling removal system.

22.  In consideration for the resources and materials provided by Elco, Inc., the parties

agreed that Elco, Inc. would have exclusive rights to manufacture the fouling removal system.

23.  In or around May of 2008, Wengren filed articles of incorporation for the

formation of Fin Technology, LLC.

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 4/7

24.  In or about May of 2009, Wengren, unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, filed a utility

patent application for the newly designed fouling removal system invented and engineered by

Joel and Daniel Guerette (hereinafter Patent #2).

25.  Patent #2 is identified by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Patent

Number US8007329B2.

26.  In obtaining Patent #2, Wengren failed to identify Joel and Daniel Guerette as

inventors or co-inventors of Patent #2.

27.  To date, Wengren has failed to transfer exclusive rights of Patent #1 and Patent #2

to Fin Technology, LLC and/or issue shares of the company to Joel and Daniel Guerette.

COUNT I

Plaintiffs Guerette v. Defendant Wengren

(Change of Inventorship on Patent #1  – 35 U.S.C. § 256)

28.  Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 27 above as if set forth

fully herein.

29.  Joel and Daniel Guerette conceived and implemented improvements which were

incorporated into Patent #1.

30.  Joel and Daniel Guerette are not presently named as co-inventors on Patent #1.

31.  This court has authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 to correct inventorship on a

patent.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette respectfully request that this Court

grant judgment in their favor and direct the Commissioner for Patents to issue a Certificate of 

Correction naming them as co-inventors of Patent #1; award them costs including attorney’s

fees; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 5/7

COUNT II

Plaintiffs Guerette v. Defendant Wengren

(Change of Inventorship on Patent #2  – 35 U.S.C. § 256)

32.  Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 31 above as if set forth

fully herein.

33.  Joel and Daniel Guerette conceived and implemented the design of Patent #2.

34.  Joel and Daniel Guerette are not presently named as inventors on Patent #2.

35.  This court has authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 to correct inventorship on a

patent.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette respectfully request that this Court

grant judgment in their favor and direct the Commissioner for Patents to issue a Certificate of 

Correction naming them as the sole co-inventors of Patent #2 or as co-inventors with Wengran;

award them costs including attorney’s fees; and grant such other and further relief as the Court

deems just and appropriate.

COUNT III

Plaintiffs Guerette v. Defendants Wengren and FIN Technology, LLC

(Unfair Competition – 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b))

36.  Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through ____ above as if set

forth fully herein.

37.  Plaintiffs Joel and Daniel Guerette entered into a verbal agreement with Wengren

whereby Wengren agreed to transfer all interest in the fouling removal system which is

comprised of Patent #1 and Patent #2 to Fin Technology, LLC.

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 6/7

38.  Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that Joel Guerette, Daniel

Guerette, and Wengren would be equal shareholder of Fin Technology, LLC.

39.  Wengren has failed to transfer all interest in Patent #1 and Patent #2 to Fin

Technology, LLC and failed to issue equal shares to Joel and Daniel Guerette.

40.  By failing to honor his obligation under the agreement, Wengren and Fin

Technology, LLC have engaged in unfair competition with Plaintiffs Joel and Daniel Guerette.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette respectfully request that this Court

grant judgment in their favor and:

a. 

Order Defendant Wengren to issues shares of Fin Technology, LLC to Plaintiffs

Daniel and Joel Guerette so as to make the three parties equal shareholders;

b.  Order Defendant Wengren to transfer any and all interest in Patent #1 and Patent #2

to Fin Technology, LLC;

c.  Award Plaintiffs their costs including attorney’s fees; and

d.  Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT IV

Plaintiff Elco, Inc. v. Defendants Wengren and FIN Technology, LLC

(Unfair Competition – 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b))

41.  Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 above as if set forth

fully herein.

42.  In consideration for the resources and materials expended by Elco, Inc. in the

design and manufacture of the fouling removal system, Wengren and Fin Technology, LLC

agreed that Elco, Inc. would have exclusive rights to manufacture the fouling removal system.

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6

7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 7/7

43.  To date, Elco, Inc. has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor,

material, and resources in reliance upon Defendants’ representations. 

44.  By failing to honor their obligations under the agreement, Wengren and Fin

Technology, LLC have engaged in unfair competition against Elco, Inc.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Elco, Inc. respectfully request that this Court grant judgment in

their favor and:

e.  Enjoin the Defendants from manufacturing the fouling removal system under Patent

#1 or Patent #2;

f. 

In the alternative, order the Defendants to pay Elco, Inc. damages in an amount that

this Court deems just and appropriate;

g.  Award Plaintiffs their costs including attorney’s fees; and

h.  Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs hereby

request a trial by jury in this matter.

Dated: June 6, 2012 /s/ Jason Dionne

Jason Dionne, Esquire (Bar No. 4317)Attorney for Plaintiffs

ISAACSON & RAYMOND, P.A.

P.O. Box 891, 75 Park StreetLewiston, ME 04243-0891

(207) 795-5000

Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7